Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Effectiveness of Clinic-Based Patient-Led Human Papillomavirus DNA Self-Sampling among HIV-Infected Women in Uganda.
Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- HOme-based self-sampling for cervical cancer prevention education among women living with HIV in Ghana (HOPE-inG): study protocol for a cluster-randomized type 2 hybrid effectiveness implementation trial.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Feasibility of First-Void Urinary and Vaginal Self-Sampling for High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Women Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Guinea-Bissau-A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Uganda, the uptake of cervical cancer (CC) screening services is low, at 46.7%, among HIV-infected women, and only 9% of these women adhere to annual CC screening. Some studies have evaluated the possibility of community or home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collected vaginal swabs, but not clinic-based HPV self-collected vaginal swabs. Therefore, we propose a study to determine the efficacy of clinic-based versus home-based HPV DNA self-sampling among HIV-infected women attending a rural HIV clinic in Uganda. We believe that a randomized, single-blinded trial would achieve this objective, and so we have chosen it to guide the study. Including a total of 382 participants from a rural HIV clinic, randomized into a ratio of 1:1 for clinic- and home-based HPV self-sampling, would allow us to appropriately ascertain the difference in the uptake of HPV self-sampling between the two arms. The Integrated Biorepository of H3 Africa Uganda Laboratory would be used as a reference laboratory for the HPV DNA extraction, typing, and sequencing. At baseline, modified Poisson regression models would be used to measure factors associated with the prevalence of HPV and uptake in both arms at baseline. Visual inspection under acetic acid (VIA), as a gold-standard test for CC to grade for CIN, would be performed at 0 and 6 months among a random sample of 75 women with a self-collected HPV sample. The difference in uptake could be determined using the intention-to-treat analysis. The difference in the groups by each variable would be summarized as the standardized mean difference (i.e., the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation). The predictors of the time for which participants would continue with HPV self-sampling in both arms, recovery, and Cox proportional hazards regression would be used. At the bivariate level, the associations between each independent variable and time, with the time of continuing HPV self-sampling, would be computed. Crude hazard ratios and their 95% confidence interval would be used in the presentation of the results, with
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.